Ms. Terry gave a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note: The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is not a public hearing. Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1) The applicant;

(2) The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;

(3) The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and

(4) Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1) Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2) Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(3) Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(4) Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5) Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

New Business:

Sean and Denee Choice, 121 Bedwen Bach Lane, Application #2010-79

Planned Unit Development (PUD) The request is for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from fifteen (15’) feet to seven (7’) feet to allow for the construction of an expanded driveway area.

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Ed Ridgeway were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Ed Ridgeway, 711 Forest Hills Road, Heath, Mark Builders:

Ms. Terry explained that the applicant wanted to expand the driveway. She stated that Mark Builders submitted a zoning permit application on behalf of the homeowners and believed that is only required administrative approval. Ms. Terry stated that once she reviewed the application, she realized that a variance was necessary and when she contacted Mr. Ridgeway he indicated that the concrete had already been poured. Ms. Terry stated that there was a mis-communication regarding the approval process when the application was dropped off and that the first step for remediation of this mistake was to require that the applicant apply for the required variance. Ms. Terry went on to explain that when she pulled the original plans that were issued for the home and driveway, the existing driveway wasn’t built as approved and that the side yard setback wasn’t shown on the plans or adhered to. Mr. Montgomery stated that the house next to this property has a driveway that is just as close to the side yard setback. Mr. Gill asked if the property owner talked to any of the neighbors. Mr. Ridgeway stated that when they were tearing down a fence he gave some of the bushes to the next door neighbor, and they discussed the plans to expand the concrete driveway but they didn’t have any discussions regarding setbacks. Mr. Gill asked if the Village received any feedback from neighbors. Ms. Terry stated that she had received several phone calls regarding the variance request. The BZBA discussed whether or not the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association was contacted. Ms. Terry explained that the Village is not required to contact the Homeowner’s Association, and that the rules within this subdivision are not a factor in whether a permit is issued by the Village for any improvements to a property. Ms. Terry stated that the Village must follow the zoning code requirements and cannot enforce deed restrictions.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-79:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Each member of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Gill, Mr. Ashbaugh and Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE. Mr. Montgomery indicated FALSE. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant has already poured the concrete.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1171, Planned Development District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.